Re: [OSM-talk] Turn Restrictions Editor
I think CloudMade's Mapzen flash editor is intending to do just this, and other specific purpose mapping scenarios: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapzen On 3 Nov 2009, at 00:10, Ian Dees wrote: Has anyone attempted to write a turn restriction editor? I suppose it would be best suited as a JOSM plugin, but I suppose it would also work as a web app or something via OAuth. It would be nice to show a GUI where intersecting ways are shown up close with an editor to describe the lanes, where each one goes, the directions you can turn, etc. and then have the editor create the tag/relation structure out of those inputs automatically. Just a thought I had as I was driving home from work tonight. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn Restrictions Editor
Ian Dees wrote: Has anyone attempted to write a turn restriction editor? I suppose it would be best suited as a JOSM plugin, but I suppose it would also work as a web app or something via OAuth. It would be nice to show a GUI where intersecting ways are shown up close with an editor to describe the lanes, where each one goes, the directions you can turn, etc. and then have the editor create the tag/relation structure out of those inputs automatically. Just a thought I had as I was driving home from work tonight. Of cause what would help here is if we actually had agreement on how this level of micro-mapping is handled anyway ;) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Turn Restrictions Editor
Has anyone attempted to write a turn restriction editor? I suppose it would be best suited as a JOSM plugin, but I suppose it would also work as a web app or something via OAuth. It would be nice to show a GUI where intersecting ways are shown up close with an editor to describe the lanes, where each one goes, the directions you can turn, etc. and then have the editor create the tag/relation structure out of those inputs automatically. Just a thought I had as I was driving home from work tonight. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Turn restrictions
Hi, I have one question for turn restrictions gurus :) Have you used http://keepright.ipax.at site for error checking? I got a message that turn restriction has no type tag. I have used wiki for getting to know how to use turn restrictions, and there the examples given on the page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction type tag is not used. The relation in question is: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/187464 I added type=restriction to it now, but is is necessary or not? Should the wiki be updated? Cheers, Valent. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions
Valent Turkovic wrote: I have used wiki for getting to know how to use turn restrictions, and there the examples given on the page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction type tag is not used. The type tag is listed in the tags section on that page. The examples were added later - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Relation%3Arestrictiondiff=216338oldid=216003 - and it's likely that the type tag was simply forgotten because the examples were primarily intended to demonstrate usage of no_* and only_* tags. I added type=restriction to it now, but is is necessary or not? Should the wiki be updated? Imo: Yes, it is necessary (other tools such as JOSM expect it, too), and the examples should be updated to reflect this. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions
On Tue, 26 May 2009 08:44:54 +0300, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: I've searched the wiki and I have used the tag myself, but there seems to be no documentation for restriction= ? How do you tag a restriction on a crossing between a major and a minor road where the major road is only allowed to go straight on and the minor road has no restrictions? Or in general: where the two roads do not have the same restriction. Split the major road at the crossing, then add two relations. Both relations will have the two parts of the major road and the node at the crossing. Both will have restriction=only_straigh_on, and the major road's parts will have roles to and from. The first relation would look like this: type=restriction restriction=only_straight_on from : major road part 1 via : node at the crossing to : major road part 2 And the other would be: type=restriction restriction=only_straight_on from : major road part 2 via : node at the crossing to : major road part 1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions
Cartinus wrote: On Tuesday 26 May 2009 07:44:54 Maarten Deen wrote: I've searched the wiki and I have used the tag myself, but there seems to be no documentation for restriction= ? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction Thanks, I knew it was somewhere, but the wiki search seems to be seriously flawed: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchns0=1ns1=1ns2=1ns3=1ns4=1ns5=1ns6=1ns7=1ns8=1ns9=1ns10=1ns11=1ns12=1ns13=1ns14=1ns15=1ns200=1ns201=1ns202=1ns203=1ns204=1ns205=1ns206=1ns208=1ns209=1redirs=1search=restrictionfulltext=Advanced+search does not bring up any results. I see now it does work with the Google search, but then what's the point for wikipedia to have its own search. Regards, ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions
Maarten Deen wrote: I've searched the wiki and I have used the tag myself, but there seems to be no documentation for restriction= ? This is, in fact, documented. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions
2009/5/26 Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl: Cartinus wrote: On Tuesday 26 May 2009 07:44:54 Maarten Deen wrote: I've searched the wiki and I have used the tag myself, but there seems to be no documentation for restriction= ? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction Thanks, I knew it was somewhere, but the wiki search seems to be seriously flawed: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchns0=1ns1=1ns2=1ns3=1ns4=1ns5=1ns6=1ns7=1ns8=1ns9=1ns10=1ns11=1ns12=1ns13=1ns14=1ns15=1ns200=1ns201=1ns202=1ns203=1ns204=1ns205=1ns206=1ns208=1ns209=1redirs=1search=restrictionfulltext=Advanced+search does not bring up any results. I see now it does work with the Google search, but then what's the point for wikipedia to have its own search. Regards, Actually, it seems all wiki searches are failing. I've copied the wiki admin in on this. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
What is your problem with having way sections between each intersection instead of one long way? The AND data in the Netherlands has ways that go only from intersection to intersection, we already split the ways at bridges, tunnels, maxspeed changes, name changes etc. Apparently the method of splitting ways into sections is already widely spread, so what's the harm when we split where there is a turn restriction as well? SteveC wrote: I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is some stuff in the talk page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction Anyone care to provide an explanation? The reason I ask is that I've come across some roads where there is a restriction every other turn in both directions... and splitting a mile long road in to 30 pieces seems nuts. As a follow up, I can guess, but what will the renderer do in that situation? I'm guessing mapnik will give up trying to put 30 names on a one mile road and won't notice they're the same name? Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
What is your problem with having way sections between each intersection instead of one long way? I don't have a problem with splitting ways, as that is what I've always done to add the relevant tags to the relevant section. But I can understand that there is a bit of an issue with doing such a thing. By so doing it isn't possible, currently, as far as I know, to work out at any given junction which road has priority (if any). If we didn't have to split ways, then a way could run as far as it has priority. Ways crossing it that had to give way (yield for our American readers) could end at the way to indicate they have lower priority at that junction. At a 4 way stop (American again), you could have 4 ways ending at the same node. But we do have to split ways for many reasons and I don't know how routing engines work out when one way at a junction has priority over another (or whether they even bother - I guess the best available at present is to compare names and/or refs). I did read something about road relations somewhere. I felt at the time that these, used carefully, could be used to indicate priorities at junction - so if a road crossed a road which had priority the lower priority would need a relation for either side for example. But this is complex and road relations I feel currently are probably unnecessary in most cases (I wouldn't want to create one for each residential road, though having said that I (Karlsruhe) tagged my first house numbers the other day and did an associatedStreet thing, so perhaps such relations will come with time). Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:01:20 +0100, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: What is your problem with having way sections between each intersection instead of one long way? I don't have a problem with splitting ways, as that is what I've always done to add the relevant tags to the relevant section. But I can understand that there is a bit of an issue with doing such a thing. By so doing it isn't possible, currently, as far as I know, to work out at any given junction which road has priority (if any). Priority has nothing to do with street-names. I've seen numerous instances where the priority-road makes a turn onto another street while the original street continues. I would find it dangerous to try to infer any kind of logical priority from the physical topology. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:01:20 +0300, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: What is your problem with having way sections between each intersection instead of one long way? I don't have a problem with splitting ways, as that is what I've always done to add the relevant tags to the relevant section. But I can understand that there is a bit of an issue with doing such a thing. By so doing it isn't possible, currently, as far as I know, to work out at any given junction which road has priority (if any). If we didn't have to split ways, then a way could run as far as it has priority. Ways crossing it that had to give way (yield for our American readers) could end at the way to indicate they have lower priority at that junction. At a 4 way stop (American again), you could have 4 ways ending at the same node. That wouldn't work, as the name or the type of the way that has priority at the junction could change. In those cases the way must be split. There's also other possibilities when the way must be split and it would be then impossible to tell which of the ways has priority (or even cases when it would seem that a way has priority while it doesn't really have). But we do have to split ways for many reasons and I don't know how routing engines work out when one way at a junction has priority over another (or whether they even bother - I guess the best available at present is to compare names and/or refs). I did read something about road relations somewhere. I felt at the time that these, used carefully, could be used to indicate priorities at junction - so if a road crossed a road which had priority the lower priority would need a relation for either side for example. But this is complex and road relations I feel currently are probably unnecessary in most cases (I wouldn't want to create one for each residential road, though having said that I (Karlsruhe) tagged my first house numbers the other day and did an associatedStreet thing, so perhaps such relations will come with time). I'd use relations, but we would need a good scheme for it. Maybe it could be done with a relation that groups the pieces of the road, and additionally the junction nodes where you must give way (and maybe other properties too). The name, ref and all the other constant properties would be then part of the relation. That way the renderers could be happy as they could just use the relation to draw the name, ref etc. of the road while the data was split because of some other property changes, while still have the ability to fine grain control for the routers. Ed Teemu Koskinen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
Ed Loach wrote: I don't know how routing engines work out when one way at a junction has priority over another (or whether they even bother - I guess the best available at present is to compare names and/or refs). Why do we need to know which way has priority? Yes it is nice to know some times, but no other maps show this and it just isn't necessary. It tends to be slower roads which you need to give way on, and these are already given a lower priority in routing algorithms. -- Alice ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:13 AM, kaerast kaer...@qvox.org wrote: Why do we need to know which way has priority? Yes it is nice to know some times, but no other maps show this and it just isn't necessary. It tends to be slower roads which you need to give way on, and these are already given a lower priority in routing algorithms. Imagine a grid of residential streets, and you're going from one corner to the opposite corner. There are two long-axis roads, one of which has priority at every intersection, the other parallel option has a give-way at every intersection. It's pretty obvious that you want to know priority so the routing algorithm picks the correct street. Classification and distance are otherwise identical. | | | | -S- | | | | -|---|---|---F- | | | | Also, if you're barrelling through the countryside it's nice to be told what to do at junctions. But not every time there's a little side road. So again knowing how long this road has priority (continue for 3 miles) or not (in 100 yards, cross the junction) is important. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is some stuff in the talk page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction Anyone care to provide an explanation? The reason I ask is that I've come across some roads where there is a restriction every other turn in both directions... and splitting a mile long road in to 30 pieces seems nuts. As a follow up, I can guess, but what will the renderer do in that situation? I'm guessing mapnik will give up trying to put 30 names on a one mile road and won't notice they're the same name? Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is some stuff in the talk page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction Anyone care to provide an explanation? The reason I ask is that I've come across some roads where there is a restriction every other turn in both directions... and splitting a mile long road in to 30 pieces seems nuts. As a follow up, I can guess, but what will the renderer do in that situation? I'm guessing mapnik will give up trying to put 30 names on a one mile road and won't notice they're the same name? If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction could apply when coming from either of the ends of the from-way. This of course doesn't matter if there is similar restriction coming from both directions, but that's not nearly always the case. And even if there is symmetry in the real life restrictions, it's not appropriate in my opinion to map those with just one restriction. About the splitting, it's already necessary to split the way if some other property changes, eg. speed limit or number of lanes (which does change more often in some places than there are restrictions), it's either the renderer's job to figure out that the pieces belong together or we could use some relation to group the pieces together but that too would require support from the renderers. Best Steve Regards Teemu Koskinen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is some stuff in the talk page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction Anyone care to provide an explanation? The reason I ask is that I've come across some roads where there is a restriction every other turn in both directions... and splitting a mile long road in to 30 pieces seems nuts. As a follow up, I can guess, but what will the renderer do in that situation? I'm guessing mapnik will give up trying to put 30 names on a one mile road and won't notice they're the same name? If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction could apply when coming from either of the ends of the from-way. This of course doesn't matter if there is similar restriction coming from both directions, but that's not nearly always the case. And even if there is symmetry in the real life restrictions, it's not appropriate in my opinion to map those with just one restriction. eh? don't you assign direction by saying 'from' and 'to' ? About the splitting, it's already necessary to split the way if some other property changes, eg. speed limit or number of lanes (which does change more often in some places than there are restrictions), it's either the renderer's job to figure out that the pieces belong together or we could use some relation to group the pieces together but that too would require support from the renderers. Yes - but turn restriction splitting will lead to much, much more splits Best Steve Regards Teemu Koskinen Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is some stuff in the talk page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction Anyone care to provide an explanation? The reason I ask is that I've come across some roads where there is a restriction every other turn in both directions... and splitting a mile long road in to 30 pieces seems nuts. As a follow up, I can guess, but what will the renderer do in that situation? I'm guessing mapnik will give up trying to put 30 names on a one mile road and won't notice they're the same name? If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction could apply when coming from either of the ends of the from-way. This of course doesn't matter if there is similar restriction coming from both directions, but that's not nearly always the case. And even if there is symmetry in the real life restrictions, it's not appropriate in my opinion to map those with just one restriction. eh? don't you assign direction by saying 'from' and 'to' ? Yes in the sense of which of the two ways you are coming from, but if the way is not one-way and it doesn't end at the via-node, there's two possible directions from where you can come to the via-node using the way. Regards Teemu Koskinen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
SteveC wrote: On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote: If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction could apply when coming from either of the ends of the from-way. This of course doesn't matter if there is similar restriction coming from both directions, but that's not nearly always the case. And even if there is symmetry in the real life restrictions, it's not appropriate in my opinion to map those with just one restriction. eh? don't you assign direction by saying 'from' and 'to' ? |A | | x| B ---*-- | | | Imagine this situation, ways A and B with a common node x. You are moving on A from north to south and are not allowed to turn into B. If you create a restriction no_left_turn from A to B via x, you will also prevent that cars moving from south to north on A can turn left. This is usually not intended. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:32, Teemu Koskinen wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is some stuff in the talk page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction Anyone care to provide an explanation? The reason I ask is that I've come across some roads where there is a restriction every other turn in both directions... and splitting a mile long road in to 30 pieces seems nuts. As a follow up, I can guess, but what will the renderer do in that situation? I'm guessing mapnik will give up trying to put 30 names on a one mile road and won't notice they're the same name? If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction could apply when coming from either of the ends of the from-way. This of course doesn't matter if there is similar restriction coming from both directions, but that's not nearly always the case. And even if there is symmetry in the real life restrictions, it's not appropriate in my opinion to map those with just one restriction. eh? don't you assign direction by saying 'from' and 'to' ? Yes in the sense of which of the two ways you are coming from, but if the way is not one-way and it doesn't end at the via-node, there's two possible directions from where you can come to the via- node using the way. Um... no. The restriction has handedness - left or right... and the way coming off it has an angle.. lets try some ascii B | | |--C | | | A I am going from A to B. There is no 'right_turn' restriction on the corner that stops me turning to C. That cannot be interpreted as a restriction from B to A as it would be a left turn, not a right turn. To figure that out you just need to compute the angle it makes with your direction of travel to see if it's left or right? Regards Teemu Koskinen Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:34, Tobias Knerr wrote: SteveC wrote: On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote: If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction could apply when coming from either of the ends of the from-way. This of course doesn't matter if there is similar restriction coming from both directions, but that's not nearly always the case. And even if there is symmetry in the real life restrictions, it's not appropriate in my opinion to map those with just one restriction. eh? don't you assign direction by saying 'from' and 'to' ? |A | | x| B ---*-- | | | Imagine this situation, ways A and B with a common node x. You are moving on A from north to south and are not allowed to turn into B. If you create a restriction no_left_turn from A to B via x, you will also prevent that cars moving from south to north on A can turn left. This is usually not intended. Ah gotcha! Ok so in that case... why don't we make best practice to split your way A in to two directions, rather than hundreds of little ways? Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 14:45, David Lynch djly...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 14:25, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction could apply when coming from either of the ends of the from-way. This of course doesn't matter if there is similar restriction coming from both directions, but that's not nearly always the case. And even if there is symmetry in the real life restrictions, it's not appropriate in my opinion to map those with just one restriction. eh? don't you assign direction by saying 'from' and 'to' ? To use a bit of ASCII art: (best viewed in monospace font) (1) | B | (2)--A--(3)--A--(4) | B | (5) A turn restriction from way A onto way B via node 3 of no left turn doesn't specify whether the left turn is from Node 2 towards Node 1, from Node 4 towards Node 5, or both. IMO, adding a from_node role for the last node before the intersection and a to_node for the first node after the intersection would be the way to get rid of the ambiguity without requiring a lot of splitting. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
2009/4/23 SteveC st...@asklater.com: On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:32, Teemu Koskinen wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is some stuff in the talk page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction Anyone care to provide an explanation? The reason I ask is that I've come across some roads where there is a restriction every other turn in both directions... and splitting a mile long road in to 30 pieces seems nuts. As a follow up, I can guess, but what will the renderer do in that situation? I'm guessing mapnik will give up trying to put 30 names on a one mile road and won't notice they're the same name? If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction could apply when coming from either of the ends of the from-way. This of course doesn't matter if there is similar restriction coming from both directions, but that's not nearly always the case. And even if there is symmetry in the real life restrictions, it's not appropriate in my opinion to map those with just one restriction. eh? don't you assign direction by saying 'from' and 'to' ? Yes in the sense of which of the two ways you are coming from, but if the way is not one-way and it doesn't end at the via-node, there's two possible directions from where you can come to the via- node using the way. Um... no. The restriction has handedness - left or right... and the way coming off it has an angle.. lets try some ascii B | | |--C | | | A I am going from A to B. There is no 'right_turn' restriction on the corner that stops me turning to C. That cannot be interpreted as a restriction from B to A as it would be a left turn, not a right turn. To figure that out you just need to compute the angle it makes with your direction of travel to see if it's left or right? The no_left_turn, no_right_turn is only to indicate the type of streetsign to show AFAIU. Practically, adding angles to the specification will be a hell to implementers, and there are few use cases that would benefit from this. Sometimes you will have a way splitting off to C that first turns slightly left, enters a tunnel or viaduct and then goes on the other side of AB, something that at low zoom level looks as in your drawing, and the streetsign might stilll be no_right_turn. Or something like this is common: B C \ | \ | \| | | A where the straight line is considered a turn even though it's straight, and the turn from A to B is considered straight even though it's an arc :P Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
SteveC schrieb: Ok so in that case... why don't we make best practice to split your way A in to two directions, rather than hundreds of little ways? You mean something like that ^A1 |A2 | | | | | | B ---*-*-- | | | | | v with both A1 and A2 being oneways? It's possible, but should probably be done only if the two directions are separated in reality. Otherwise, this will affect the possibility of turning. It also isn't great that the user sees two roads where only one exists in reality. You also have to deal with navigation software announcing two junctions instead of one, and so on. If you then consider that applications don't interpret anything except the no_/only_-prefix and aren't expected to care about the rest of the value (left, right and straight on being nontrivial concepts for software), you'd have to create two directions for B, too. At that point, it's probably best to just split A at junctions and be done with it. Tobias Knerr PS: I'd really love to see a feature to select ways between *click1* and *click2* in editors. Would make all that way-splitting much less of a problem. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
If one were to refer to nodes on the two ways instead of the way itself, it would remove the ambiguity wouldn't it? Albeit more complicated for the consumer to work out, in that it would have to decide which way the two nodes were on. |A *a | c| b -*---*---*--B | | * | from a to b via c, rather than from A to B via c David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:56:09 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/4/23 SteveC st...@asklater.com: On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:32, Teemu Koskinen wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is some stuff in the talk page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction Anyone care to provide an explanation? The reason I ask is that I've come across some roads where there is a restriction every other turn in both directions... and splitting a mile long road in to 30 pieces seems nuts. As a follow up, I can guess, but what will the renderer do in that situation? I'm guessing mapnik will give up trying to put 30 names on a one mile road and won't notice they're the same name? If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction could apply when coming from either of the ends of the from-way. This of course doesn't matter if there is similar restriction coming from both directions, but that's not nearly always the case. And even if there is symmetry in the real life restrictions, it's not appropriate in my opinion to map those with just one restriction. eh? don't you assign direction by saying 'from' and 'to' ? Yes in the sense of which of the two ways you are coming from, but if the way is not one-way and it doesn't end at the via-node, there's two possible directions from where you can come to the via- node using the way. Um... no. The restriction has handedness - left or right... and the way coming off it has an angle.. lets try some ascii B | | |--C | | | A I am going from A to B. There is no 'right_turn' restriction on the corner that stops me turning to C. That cannot be interpreted as a restriction from B to A as it would be a left turn, not a right turn. To figure that out you just need to compute the angle it makes with your direction of travel to see if it's left or right? The no_left_turn, no_right_turn is only to indicate the type of streetsign to show AFAIU. Practically, adding angles to the specification will be a hell to implementers, and there are few use cases that would benefit from this. Sometimes you will have a way splitting off to C that first turns slightly left, enters a tunnel or viaduct and then goes on the other side of AB, something that at low zoom level looks as in your drawing, and the streetsign might stilll be no_right_turn. Or something like this is common: B C \ | \ | \| | | A where the straight line is considered a turn even though it's straight, and the turn from A to B is considered straight even though it's an arc :P Cheers So how do you mean to tag a no_left_turn, where it is marked with a fully drawn yellow line in the center of a road, but no sign? The restriction to tag must correspodent with the actual restriction, so that a routing engine will route you correctly even if there are no visible signs. Sometimes restrictions can be painted in the lanes (one lane with arrow to the right, and one straight ahead, but no lane with arrow to the left). The choise of lane will than correspodent with where you are going, I guess that type of routing might come in another relation. A ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
2009/4/23 Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skipp...@gimnechiske.org: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:56:09 +0200, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Or something like this is common: B C \ | \ | \| | | A where the straight line is considered a turn even though it's straight, and the turn from A to B is considered straight even though it's an arc :P Cheers So how do you mean to tag a no_left_turn, where it is marked with a fully drawn yellow line in the center of a road, but no sign? The restriction to tag must correspodent with the actual restriction, so that a routing engine will route you correctly even if there are no visible signs. The routing engine will already route you correctly if it follows the specification on the wiki page, taking only the no_ / only_ part of the tag into account. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
David Earl schrieb: If one were to refer to nodes on the two ways instead of the way itself, it would remove the ambiguity wouldn't it? There was a proposal that suggested exactly that, xrestriction: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Relation:xrestriction Hasn't been used a lot. Also, the wiki page has apparently been deleted. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
On 23 Apr 2009, at 22:56, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 2009/4/23 SteveC st...@asklater.com: On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:32, Teemu Koskinen wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:25:36 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Teemu Koskinen wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:05 +0300, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I don't see a clear explanation as to why there is ambiguity if you don't do turn restrictions at the end of ways on the wiki. There is some stuff in the talk page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:restriction Anyone care to provide an explanation? The reason I ask is that I've come across some roads where there is a restriction every other turn in both directions... and splitting a mile long road in to 30 pieces seems nuts. As a follow up, I can guess, but what will the renderer do in that situation? I'm guessing mapnik will give up trying to put 30 names on a one mile road and won't notice they're the same name? If both from and to ways continue after the via point and neither is one-way, there's two possible ways to interpret it: the restriction could apply when coming from either of the ends of the from-way. This of course doesn't matter if there is similar restriction coming from both directions, but that's not nearly always the case. And even if there is symmetry in the real life restrictions, it's not appropriate in my opinion to map those with just one restriction. eh? don't you assign direction by saying 'from' and 'to' ? Yes in the sense of which of the two ways you are coming from, but if the way is not one-way and it doesn't end at the via-node, there's two possible directions from where you can come to the via- node using the way. Um... no. The restriction has handedness - left or right... and the way coming off it has an angle.. lets try some ascii B | | |--C | | | A I am going from A to B. There is no 'right_turn' restriction on the corner that stops me turning to C. That cannot be interpreted as a restriction from B to A as it would be a left turn, not a right turn. To figure that out you just need to compute the angle it makes with your direction of travel to see if it's left or right? The no_left_turn, no_right_turn is only to indicate the type of streetsign to show AFAIU. Practically, adding angles to the specification will be a hell to implementers, and there are few use cases that would benefit from this. Sometimes you will have a way splitting off to C that first turns slightly left, enters a tunnel or viaduct and then goes on the other side of AB, something that at low zoom level looks as in your drawing, and the streetsign might stilll be no_right_turn. Or something like this is common: B C \ | \ | \| | | A where the straight line is considered a turn even though it's straight, and the turn from A to B is considered straight even though it's an arc :P This is yet another kettle of fish of how do you get the routing engine to tell you when the general flow of traffic is from A - B, even so the road name of A is the same a C, but different to B. I have come across a lot of these on my travels, and still haven't come up with a way to tag it. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions ambiguity
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:16 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: If one were to refer to nodes on the two ways instead of the way itself, it would remove the ambiguity wouldn't it? Albeit more complicated for the consumer to work out, in that it would have to decide which way the two nodes were on. an alternative is to use the implicit direction of each way where there is ambiguity, as is done for oneway. this would mean all combinations can be uniquely resolved without way splitting or explicit reference to nodes. it is also forward-compatible with the existing scheme. it would seem that the most user-friendly way of presenting this would be built-in editor support*, e.g: by drawing an arrow from one way to the other showing the disallowed route, rather than expecting users to parse the relation themselves. cheers, matt * i know, i know, patches welcome, etc... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Turn restrictions vs allowances?
What is the opposite of a turn restriction? I can't find it and no one answers on IRC. Turning left is forbidden everywhere in my country on two way roads when there is no specific traffic light for it, and I assume it's the same in many other countries. Without a turning left allowed relation, a restriction no left turn relation is needed on each intersection of every two way road (twice, one for each direction of driving?), isn't it? Hopefully I'm missing something :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions vs allowances?
Matias D'Ambrosio wrote: Sent: 22 October 2008 8:21 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions vs allowances? What is the opposite of a turn restriction? I can't find it and no one answers on IRC. Turning left is forbidden everywhere in my country on two way roads when there is no specific traffic light for it, and I assume it's the same in many other countries. Interesting, which country are you talking about since clearly it does differ around the world. Essentially in the UK you can turn left or right at any junction, with or without a traffic signal. Generally the only time you cannot is when a no left turn or no right turn sign is present. I'm guessing that the reason the turn restrictions tagging has come about is because most countries are the opposite to yours rather than the same? Anyway, I agree it sounds like to need a turn_permitted= type tag for your area. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions vs allowances?
On Wednesday 22 October 2008 18:06:10 you wrote: Matias D'Ambrosio wrote: Sent: 22 October 2008 8:21 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions vs allowances? What is the opposite of a turn restriction? I can't find it and no one answers on IRC. Turning left is forbidden everywhere in my country on two way roads when there is no specific traffic light for it, and I assume it's the same in many other countries. Interesting, which country are you talking about since clearly it does differ around the world. Essentially in the UK you can turn left or right at any junction, with or without a traffic signal. Generally the only time you cannot is when a no left turn or no right turn sign is present. I'm guessing that the reason the turn restrictions tagging has come about is because most countries are the opposite to yours rather than the same? Weird, apparently people in other countries have respect for each other ;-) I'm in Argentina, some things are great (street numbers), some things are like this. I'm a bit confused about the wording of the law, though. It talks about this restriction applying to ways regulated by traffic lights, by which it might mean it applies at intersections with traffic lights, or not. The law is not respected, if it applies, when far from downtown. Also, three provinces have their own laws, but at least in the case of Buenos Aires the national and provincial law say the same in this case. The national law that mentions this is law 24449 in 44.f which can be read: http://www.vialidad.gov.ar/legislacion_de_transito/Ley 24449.pdf ARTICULO 44.-VIAS SEMAFORIZADAS. En las vías reguladas por semáforos: a) Los vehículos deben: 1. Con luz verde a su frente, avanzar; 2. Con luz roja, detenerse antes de la línea marcada a tal efecto o de la senda peatonal, evitando luego cualquier movimiento; 3. Con luz amarilla, detenerse si se estima que no se alcanzará a transponer la encrucijada antes de la roja; 4. Con luz intermitente amarilla, que advierte la presencia de cruce riesgoso, efectuar el mismo con precaución; 5. Con luz intermitente roja, que advierte la presencia de cruce peligroso, detener la marcha y sólo reiniciarla cuando se observe que no existe riesgo alguno; 6. En un paso a nivel, el comienzo del descenso de la barrera equivale al significado de la luz amarilla del semáforo; b) Los peatones deberán cruzar la calzada cuando: 1. Tengan a su frente semáforo peatonal con luz verde o blanca habilitante; 2. Sólo exista semáforo vehicular y el mismo de paso a los vehículos que circulan en su misma dirección; 3. No teniendo semáforo a la vista, el tránsito de la vía a cruzar esté detenido. No deben cruzar con luz roja o amarilla a su frente; c) No rigen las normas comunes sobre el paso de encrucijada; d) La velocidad máxima permitida es la señalizada para la sucesión coordinada de luces verdes sobre la misma vía; e) Debe permitirse finalizar el cruce que otro hace y no iniciar el propio ni con luz verde, si del otro lado de la encrucijada no hay espacio suficiente para sí. f) En vías de doble mano no se debe girar a la izquierda salvo señal que lo permita. 44.d in particular is clearly not just for the intersections, though I'd be inclined to think 44.f is only for intersections with traffic lights. As I said on IRC, this is quite similar to the saying two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do, only the other way around :-) I think simply having allowance instead of restriction would work, and then let routing programs figure out what laws apply. They have to know the country for speed limits and other things anyway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions vs allowances?
We have a similar thing here in Queensland, Australia. You can't do a U-turn at any traffic lights unless there is a sign specifically saying that you can. I think this is the same across the whole country, but I'd have to check. There are no signs saying you can't at the other lights, you're supposed to know (or at least infer it). Intersections without traffic lights are the opposite - you may do a u-turn unless there is a sign saying you can't. I haven't got around to tagging any of them yet, so haven't had to figure out how to do it. Stephen 2008/10/23 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Matias D'Ambrosio wrote: Sent: 22 October 2008 8:21 PM To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions vs allowances? What is the opposite of a turn restriction? I can't find it and no one answers on IRC. Turning left is forbidden everywhere in my country on two way roads when there is no specific traffic light for it, and I assume it's the same in many other countries. Interesting, which country are you talking about since clearly it does differ around the world. Essentially in the UK you can turn left or right at any junction, with or without a traffic signal. Generally the only time you cannot is when a no left turn or no right turn sign is present. I'm guessing that the reason the turn restrictions tagging has come about is because most countries are the opposite to yours rather than the same? Anyway, I agree it sounds like to need a turn_permitted= type tag for your area. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Turn restrictions again
I've create an proposal for turn restrictions. It's at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relation:xrestriction ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions again
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Nic Roets [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've create an proposal for turn restrictions. It's at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relation:xrestriction I do not see how Relation:restriction does not allow mappers to unambiguously specify any of the 16 maneuvers possible where 2 bidirectional ways cross. can you elaborate on this please? -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions again
Ways NS and EW cross at X. Tell me how to encode all these combinations : 1. I travel North in NS and turn left at X 2. I travel North in NS and turn right at X 3. I travel North in NS straight through X 4. I travel North in NS and make a U-turn at X Now replace 'North' with 'South' and you have 8 Replace North and South with East and West and NS with EW and you have 16. On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Thomas Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Relation:restriction does not allow mappers to unambiguously 'From' is either NS or EW, 'To' is either NS or EW and 'via' is always X. That's 4 combinations. Even if you specify 'no_right_turn / no_left_turn' when 'from' is not 'to' and you specify 'no_uturn' and 'no_straight_on' when 'from' = 'to' you've only got 8. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions again
Hi, I've create an proposal for turn restrictions. It's at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relation:xrestriction I see no problem in splitting a way at an intersection where it is part of a turn restriction, thus nicely solving all ambiguity. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Turn restrictions again
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I hope you at least see a few small problems : 1. Mappers may not think about coming from the other side and forget to split. (unless the validator flags it). 2. The more split ways we have, the more difficult it is to keep all the tags up to date (esp outside download bbox). On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've create an proposal for turn restrictions. It's at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relation:xrestriction I see no problem in splitting a way at an intersection where it is part of a turn restriction, thus nicely solving all ambiguity. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
